The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Seriously, from what I've seen (about to try out the technology preview) it looks like a lightweight client-side WYSIWYG authoring app with some stuff built in to ensure site control (inability to update script, ability to lock down templates etc). So designed more for sites that run off a set of files than sites that run off a set of database records.

So I don't know anything quite like it, but a limited-functionality WYSIWYG like FrontPage would be the closest comparison. Though that's not very close - give me Contribute any day And of course FrontPage et al don't have all the lockdown etc.

The web developer of the non profit organization that I serve on the technology committee with thinks this would be great for the office staff to be able to update their site. I looked at it and said Front Page...

I just don't see why a good CMS with a editor wouldn't provide the same thing.

Originally posted by MissingArrow
I just don't see why a good CMS with a editor wouldn't provide the same thing.
dan

Because with Contribute you don't need to design, build, and migrate to a CMS. You can just stick it on the front of an existing file-based site and away you go.

I don't actually think it's in competition with things like Editize. In fact it doesn't do database-driven stuff much at all. It's still file-based. The only database-driven content I've been able to edit in Contribute is from Zope, and that's only because you can access the Zope object store via FTP.

I do think it's in competition with FrontPage, but with a lot more content control and standards compliance (plus, it costs less )

We're very, very seriously considering rolling this tool out on our intranet when it gets released. Sometimes you just don't need the hassle and overhead of a database-driven CMS.

I'm testing it out now for possible release with my company. I'll let you guys know the results, but it's definitely better than Frontpage as far as clean code and control goes from what I have used of it. Of course, when it comes to users, anything can and will go wrong, so I will post results when I've done more testing (only on 1 day of testing now).

Not a problem I've seen unfortunately. My main issue is that it seems to barf on some ColdFusion code - I think because the CF code is doing dodgy recursive things like variable definition, includes in includes etc.

Yes but it pulls the page via the standard HTTP when you're accessing (i.e. browsing) the site. However whenever you change over to edit mode I think it pulls the actual file down to your PC through FTP. It doesn't get it via HTTP.

So you may still be able to see the site fine, and not be able to get any files off it if the FTP's not working.

Overall I have found the Contribute app itself to be more stable than Dreamweaver! It crashes less on me (actually Contribute hasn't and DW seems to enjoy choking on some pages another developer coded and I now maintain) and I find it pretty useful for making small text changes to sites (I was doing this to test the product out). It does not do well rendering includes, or especially deeply nested includes, as well as generated content (i.e. from databases) but overall it does what it was meant to do very well, which is give clients a way to change static information quickly without hassling us developers.